Skip to main content

About your Search

20130302
20130310
Search Results 0 to 0 of about 1
it in the house, you could not take the law seriously. nobody had any interest in voting against it. it was politically incorrect to vote against it was the implication, and therefore the court should not defer to it as it might normally defer to the law. >> what has changed since 2006 with this lot? >> the covered states need to be covered. because of voting rights violations. the congress amassed evidence of this, and that is why they extended section 5. >> special the county attorney, but jealous -- the shelby county , said we butch ellis have made tremendous strides. >> shelby county is the last place you want to make this case because the evidence of verifies keeping that county covered. chief justice roberts thinks things have changed. things have not changed that much. go back to the last convention. the evidence of attempted voter suppression is pervasive in this country. even more states probably should be covered than are already covered. >> that is sort of the point of shelby county. it says, you have not re- evaluated if it is already covered. we have not looked at this
Search Results 0 to 0 of about 1